Here’s a roundup of not-so-joyful tidings:
Paul Ryan’s budget assaults children.
Don’t even think about fraud in the Wisconsin judicial election.
Eric Holder’s arrogance gallops apace.
This sort of thing was inevitable. Of course, if Bush were in charge, it would be front-page news everywhere.
But never fear, here’s some actual fun stuff to counter all that misery:
What’s Jonathan Chait been smoking? This is rather odd, even for him [emphasis mine]:
What’s most interesting is that Republicans never hammered home a strong character narrative about Obama. The party’s M.O. since Bill Clinton has been to make the Democratic nominee personally unacceptable — a liar, a flip-flopper, a phony, a girly man. There have been some half attempts to flesh out a story about Obama as arrogant, but it’s a weak charge and it hasn’t really gone anywhere.
Why have Republicans abandoned their playbook against Obama? One reason is that they’ve been confounded by race, and unable to craft a negative personal message that didn’t make them feel vulnerable to charges of racism. Another reason is that they feel confident — excessively confident, I’d say — that they can beat Obama on the economy and policy, blaming his Big Government policies for the recession.
I’ve noticed that lately, many of the charges about Obama’s lying, flip-flopping, and weakness have come from the left, and they have in fact gained traction on that side. And it’s no surprise that the right has found it hard to craft a criticism of Obama that doesn’t leave them vulnerable to charges of racism, because all criticism of Obama from the right has been defined as racism by the left.
And maybe it’s just the blogs and periodicals I happen to read—but man, I haven’t seen anything near approaching confidence on the right. More like frustration and even a bit of despair that, despite Obama’s poor showing as a president and his resultant vulnerability, the really appealing GOP candidates are not running. That leaves the Republicans with slim pickings in the presidential race for 2012.
Speaking of slim pickings, we have this.
As of now, we have no idea what will happen come Saturday.
My single observation at the moment is that I’m exceedingly tired of the spin that says it’s 100% the fault of a certain side. Both sides are sticking to their guns at the moment. You can think that one side’s position has all the merit and the other side’s all the stupidity and/or knavery, but that doesn’t mean that either couldn’t capitulate and keep the federal government running with no interruption. So if we have a shutdown, it will be because neither side gave in.
[ADDENDUM: Obama’s certainly playing his part, saying he’ll veto a stopgap measure that isn’t just what he wants. I have to say this does not surprise me.
And here’s a link to a quick summary of what a federal government shutdown would involve.]
Boy, have they gotten old.
And it’s Garfunkel’s voice that’s been most affected by the passage of time, although he still appears to have much of his always-formidable hair. But that high clear angelic sound is a bit grittier than before (not surprising, really), and his low-key delivery has gotten hammier, as though to compensate.
And although—as one YouTube commenter writes, “There’s something both moving and repulsive about very old people getting back together to sing songs that were written a lifetime ago…,” I think the “moving” part comes out ahead here (and please take away that word “very!”):
And did you know that “Mrs. Robinson” was originally about Mrs. Roosevelt?
Ah, what a difference twenty-eight years makes:
It’s interesting to watch it happening in real time.
[Hat tip: commenter “foxfier.”]
When I first began this blog and resolved to write pretty much every day if I possibly could, my initial worry was that I’d lack for topics. And although I suppose that could still end up happening, so far it’s been the very least of my worries. Far more often the problem has been too many topics, too little time.
Or so many angles and approaches to one topic that writing all of them, or even most of them, would be a full-time job and then some.
For example, with the Ryan budget proposal alone we’ve got quite a variety of opinions, and that’s only the ones cited at memeorandum on one thread; there are more here on the very same page. There’s everything from the predictable Krugman/Yglesias scoffing and ridicule to the also predictable defense from National Review, and so on and so forth with the usual suspects saying the usual things and the usual arguments and counterarguments.
Budget proposals such as Ryan’s, as well as the previous HCR statute that set up Obamacare, are inherently complex things that require not only a fairly good grasp of economics but also make a great many assumptions and projections about the way things will go afterward. This makes them a fertile field for each side to say whatever it wants, sometimes through distortion and even outright lies, sometimes through wishful thinking, and sometimes simply through the different economic theories that underlie the true philosophical differences between left and right.
What’s an ordinary person such as myself, one who is not especially well-versed in economic matters, to do? Read, read, read, and think, think, think, weigh the different points made, as well as trying to go to some of the arguably less-biased sources to try to find what might be the closest thing to an objective opinion out there.
For the latter I sometimes read Megan McCardle, since she’s especially into economic issues and has been mostly somewhat middle of the road. So far she hasn’t done any in-depth analysis of the Ryan proposal; I’m waiting patiently. But here are her first impressions, containing this gem: “As of this evening, the Democratic policy plan consists of yelling ‘You suck!'”
As with McArdle, most commentators are giving general impressions right now rather than delving into the minutiae. This take by James Capretta is pretty good, although I disagree somewhat with his statement that “with a Republican plan on the table, the media will surely start to ask Democrats, ‘Hey, where’s your plan?'” Only the fairer ones will, I predict.
And this piece by Riehan Salam seems to make some interesting and balanced points (he quotes Capretta, as well). Here’s an excerpt from Salam:
We’re seeing a strange political reversal. Republicans haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory in recent years when it comes to questions of fiscal sustainability. The classic Republican position has been to call for tax cuts without calling for commensurate cuts to mandatory spending, i.e., the party has advocated shifting the tax burden from today’s workers to future workers, without saying so explicitly. Republicans have had the luxury of taking potshots at Democrats without offering a plausible path to fiscal sustainability of their own. This allowed Democrats to claim to be the more fiscally responsible party, despite the fact that they too were offering a pie-in-the-sky approach, in which hikes in marginal tax rates on high earners were offered as a cure-all.
Now, in contrast, we have prominent Republican legislators getting behind deep cuts in entitlement spending as a strategy for forestalling future tax increases. One could counter by arguing that higher taxes on the non-poor ”” that is, on middle-income as well as high-income households ”” are preferable for reasons X, Y, and Z, and that a centralized approach to cost control is better than a decentralized approach to cost control. We definitely hear the latter argument here and there, at least from left-of-center wonks. But it’s only a doughty handful few critics who explicitly make the case for higher middle-class taxes to fund a progressive welfare state. As Matt Yglesias recently, er, tweeted,
“I think Obama taking all middle class taxes off the table makes something approximating Ryanism inevitable: http://ygl.as/hg0Kdb”
That sounds about right.
So yes, let’s continue the debate about whether Rep. Ryan’s cuts are too deep. But it’s time for the other shoe to drop. If the cuts really are too deep, which taxes should we increase? There is, after all, only so much revenue we can squeeze high-earners.
One thing I’ve noticed already is that many writers call Ryan’s Medicare proposal a voucher program. It is not; it is a premium support program, although how much of a distinction that represents is also up for grabs.
It always especially interests me when either praise or criticism—however slight—comes from unexpected sources. In this case we have liberal Jacob Weisberg in Slate calling the Ryan plan “brave, radical, and smart.” Hmmm (he also says it involves vouchers, but he’s hardly alone in that). Here’s a sample from Weisberg (and note that it includes the very call for an alternative plan from Democrats that Capretta aluded to ):
If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party””one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan’s proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don’t respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.
And before they reject everything in Ryan’s plan, liberals might want to consider whether some of what he proposes doesn’t in fact serve their own ultimate goals. Ryan’s proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher provides an easy political target. But it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program in its current form.
One could spend days just reading the opinions on the plan. But now it’s your turn to add to them—fire away!
[NOTE: By the way, Weisberg writes, “Democrats have been more fiscally responsible, producing an actual budget surplus during Bill Clinton’s second term.”
But Congress was Republican during Clinton’s second term. ]
Three caveats here.
One is that I am unusually pressed for time today, and so this will be quick. I’m pretty certain, though, that this is only my first visit to a topic that is big and will be lasting.
The second is that, as with most budgets offered by either side, it’s the details that are most important, and those details will only emerge over time.
The third is that, as with most budgets offered by either side, some of the projections for cost savings are going to be based on guesses and unknowns.
Here’s Paul Ryan’s statement. Here it is in another form:
Here’s another look at what’s being proposed. Allahpundit provides some other links here.
It can safely be said that the left will hate it and start digging into it with vigor; they already have. It can be safely said that even the right will fight it in various ways; after all, cutting benefits is bound to be unpopular, even with people who are all for a more balanced budget. Another thing that can safely be said is that this budget is not a mere echo of Obama’s; the differences are very stark and very real.
To be continued…
The news that Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa has recanted on the issue of Israel and war crimes is stunning. He now absolves the country, in contrast to his accusations in the so-called Goldstone Report, issued in 2009.
Not that Israel’s enemies will know or care to read what he has to say now; his original report was influential and has served their purposes quite nicely already.
[NOTE: Interesting question: did the NY Times really refuse to publish his new op-ed? Or not?
This statement by Politco’s Roger Simon may just be the finest encapsulation I’ve heard recently of what’s wrong with the media today. Talking to Howard Kurtz at CNN about the fact that the press has been critical lately of Obama’s actions in Libya, Simon says:
The bloom isn’t entirely off the rose between Obama and the press, but reporters are starting to concentrate more than ever on what he says rather than how he says it. We will stipulate that he’s the greatest orator of modern times, but now we’re looking beyond that in every speech for what he’s actually telling us.
Here’s the video:
Such a fertile field for thought and reflection!
Is Simon talking about himself or the press in general?
Is his statement that Obama is “the greatest orator of modern times” something he believes to be so self-evident that it’s clearly true?
When does he believe “modern times” began? If 2008, then perhaps he’s right. If it includes the 20th century—well, there were a couple of minor orators such as Churchill, FDR, and (from the reports of native German speakers) Adolf Hitler to consider. Reagan wasn’t half bad, either.
I’d also like to ask Simon whether he thinks the art of oration includes content, or whether it’s purely an acting and delivery thing (either way, my personal opinion is that both are dreadful in Obama’s case, but I’m well aware that the majority of people would probably differ with me on that score). Can one be a great orator while uttering meaningless gibberish, for example? And if not, will empty platitudes voiced in a resonant voice do?
Simon appears to be aware that reporters are supposed to be skeptical; he says so right before the “greatest orator” remark. Simon’s admission that it’s only now that reporters are “looking beyond” the way Obama speaks to the actual content is both remarkable and disturbing. Is he saying that reporters make a habit of looking on the surface of things and pay no attention to substance? Or is he saying there’s something special about Obama that made them suspend their usual skepticism and be seduced by his smoothness and his supposedly self-evident eloquence?
In sum, is Simon saying that reporters are fools? Or is he saying they are knaves? Or perhaps that they are foolish knaves, or knavish fools? And do we care anymore which it might be, if in fact we ever did?
And how long, how long, will these people be listened to with any sort of respect by anyone?
Yesterday I was in New York visiting my 97-year-old mother at the assisted living facility where she’s lived for the past four years.
My mother has been looking thinner lately. Her broken hip and surgery last fall took a bit out of her, and she seems more frail and faded. But fortunately, she’s happy enough and still knows all of us and even manages to crack a few jokes.
I brought her a pizza. It wasn’t the greatest pizza—I’m limited to ordering from the little place down the street—but it was pepperoni, her favorite. And although she ate slowly, she ate steadily: a large piece and a half, and two glasses of water. She always was a woman who loved her pizza.
The place my mother lives now is one of those facilities where management believes it’s good for the residents to be around what might be called “companion animals.” In practice, that meant that we were sitting in front of a bunny hutch wherein resides a rabbit who is a ringer for Peter, munching adorably on a carrot and some lettuce. At our feet was a little dog who has the run of the place, but unfortunately he (like his predecessor canine) doesn’t really have the proper temperament for the job description. In other words, he likes to bark.
The walls of the establishment are decorated in what I’ve come to think of as old age home art. That is, there are prints of paintings that have some sort of hazy, romantic connection to the past. Victorian ladies and gentlemen. Children and their parents, circa late-1800s. Flowery flowers and homey cottages and swinging garden gates.
It all seems designed to evoke memories of the time right before the current residents were born, their parents’ generation really. I’m not sure why that’s the focus, but perhaps to make them feel protected and secure? Or maybe just because it’s the sort of nostalgic art that’s kitschy, popular, readily available, and cheap these days?
My mother was never really into art anyway. She was into people and books. And now, in the basket of her walker, she’s taken to carrying around with her as many books as it will hold. She sometimes reads them when she stops to rest on couches in the hallways as she makes her way about the place. Their presence seems to comfort and reassure her.
When I phone her, she usually reports that she’s been reading. And maybe indeed she has; I wouldn’t really know. I think that her personality is being distilled down to some of its essential elements, and for her that’s family, pizza, and books. Not a bad combo, really; one could do worse at 97.